Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Ageleni

Archiving caches that have no problems

Recommended Posts

A local geocacher has just archived all of their caches, citing that they are no longer able to maintain them.  This makes me sad.  I found a lot of them, and they are in good condition, and have easy finds as recently as last week.  I understand COs archiving when it becomes clear that one of their caches needs maintenance, but I've never seen someone archive dozens of caches at once just because they would not be able to maintain them in the future.  Seems like they could have kept them in play until one went missing, and then archive it.  (Maybe they removed all of them physically, not wanting to litter.)

Edited by Ageleni

Share this post


Link to post

It's wrong. It gives geocaching a black eye. 

 

I wonder if when this happens (and it happens too often IMO) GCHQ could step in and ask the owner to do the right thing, ask him/her to put a note on his cache listings requesting that next finders remove his caches and discard them appropriately. 

Edited by L0ne.R
sentence structure

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Ageleni said:

A local geocacher has just archived all of their caches, citing that they are no longer able to maintain them.  This makes me sad.  I found a lot of them, and they are in good condition, and have easy finds as recently as last week.  I understand COs archiving when it becomes clear that one of their caches needs maintenance, but I've never seen someone archive dozens of caches at once just because they would not be able to maintain them in the future.  Seems like they could have kept them in play until one went missing, and then archive it.  (Maybe they removed all of them physically, not wanting to litter.)

 

If I moved too far away, I'd archive any of mine left too.     :)

Luckily I had time to ask around for help before the last bout in the hospital .  Otherwise, I would have archived them too.

 - We've done maintenance for others until they can do it again themselves too.

 

You see, there's nothing in the guidelines mentioning "community maintenance" of a cache belonging to another as a good thing.

"Others" can't remove the red wrench for needs maintenance, delete fake logs, or accept requirements of some hide types.

That's done by the CO. 

If at anytime a CO can't do maintenance, it's time to ask around about adoption, or make them go bye-bye through archiving them.

 

On the other hand,  simply that a cache needs maintenance doesn't make it "clear" that it's to be archived.

 - They're supposed to fix it.  Archiving a cache just because it "needs maintenance" shows no intention of ever doing any ...

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

I personally would rather archive a cache myself.

Most caches with maintenance issues often seem to be COs no longer playing the hobby. 

That cache sits,  waiting until it becomes a piece of carp (or gone missing) ... eventually  to force a Reviewer step in to go through the archival process.

We see this a lot

I have a conscience, and would like to keep what little reputation I have.   If gone a while, I might want to return someday.    :)

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

It's wrong. It gives geocaching a black eye.

 

I don't think it's wrong, per se.  It's definitely up to what the owner wants to do.  It just bummed me out a little, because those caches are in great shape and many were fun or in very interesting locations.  I suppose I could swoop in and replicate the caches in some of the cooler places. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe you could contact them and see if you could take over their caches and keep them active under a new Listing.  Seems like a better option than the choice they made.

  • Upvote 1
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Ageleni said:

I suppose I could swoop in and replicate the caches in some of the cooler places. 

That's certainly an option. One of the COs in our area committed geocide a while back, and a number of his better puzzle caches were recreated by various members of the community. And I've seen other "tribute" caches that re-created archived caches that had a special place in someone's heart.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Ageleni said:

  I suppose I could swoop in and replicate the caches in some of the cooler places. 

 

Yep.  Some spots found our first two years have been "redone" years later.   

Most  containers today much better than tupperware and cookie tins.     :)

Edited by cerberus1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, LizzyRN said:

Adoption is an option.

 

You can adopt an archived cache ?

 

Thought I remembered... by the guidelines :

"Note: Archived and grandfathered cache types cannot be transferred to a new owner."

Edited by cerberus1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, LizzyRN said:

Adoption is an option.

 

Adoption was an option.  Too late now for these caches.  

 

A local cacher who recently moved away asked me if I wanted to adopt any of her 4 caches before she left.  I took them all.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I agree it's sad. I'm glad I haven't seen it too often. One in my area I found somewhat sadder because it meant a lot of solved puzzle caches I'd never get to find. (Well, except not all the containers were collected...) It doesn't help that the conscientious CO that archives his caches because he's moving away is always the one that uses the best containers to begin with and puts them in the best places so they could last years without maintenance. But it's their choice, so just one more thing about geocaching to remind us that all things must pass.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Ageleni said:

 

I don't think it's wrong, per se.  It's definitely up to what the owner wants to do.  It just bummed me out a little, because those caches are in great shape and many were fun or in very interesting locations.  I suppose I could swoop in and replicate the caches in some of the cooler places. 

 

I saw this done when a guy in my area archived all of his 500 of his caches on the same day. Not because he couldn't maintain them anymore though. (Addendum, he didn't maintain them when they were active caches, and he was still active after archiving all of his hides that day, so no geocide). Something must have triggered him. Then people started re-posting some of those caches "in honour" of him. :unsure: Which suggests that they had no problem with him archiving his caches and leaving them as litter.

 

I'd be tempted to re-post the cache and start the description off with "[CO's name] archived this cache but didn't retrieve it. I'm re-purposing it as a new cache." 

 

Edited by L0ne.R

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Ageleni said:

 

I don't think it's wrong, per se.  It's definitely up to what the owner wants to do.  It just bummed me out a little, because those caches are in great shape and many were fun or in very interesting locations.  I suppose I could swoop in and replicate the caches in some of the cooler places. 

 

I think LOne.R was talking about the suggestion to leave them there until they go missing and then archive them, not the actual decision to archive them in the first place.  Am I right?

 

1 hour ago, L0ne.R said:

I wonder if when this happens (and it happens too often IMO) GCHQ could step in and ask the owner to do the right thing, ask him/her to put a note on his cache listings requesting that next finders remove his caches and discard them appropriately. 

 

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.  Are you talking about caches being archived or caches being "abandoned" by their COs rather than being archived.  In the first situation (archival), if they're archived, there won't be any next finder to remove the cache from the field because it won't show on the map, so that's not going to work.  If it's the 2nd scenario, they are absentee owners.  You want GS to do something they probably don't have the manpower or time to do and send an email to the CO, who left them there,  to post something to a cache that they have no intention of maintaining, removing, or even archiving.  Why do you think the CO would even do something like that?

 

I understand the intent but it's not a practical solution.

Edited by coachstahly

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

It's wrong. It gives geocaching a black eye. 

 

I wonder if when this happens (and it happens too often IMO) GCHQ could step in and ask the owner to do the right thing, ask him/her to put a note on his cache listings requesting that next finders remove his caches and discard them appropriately. 

It's wrong ONLY IF they left the containers as geolitter. If they picked up the containers, then all is well and within their rights.

 

The caches belong to the CO; they have the right to pick them up and archive the listings at any time, in any number, in good condition or not.

 

(There's an implication of permanence, so it's frowned upon to archive them soon after they're listed, but that's a side issue.)

Edited by TriciaG
  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, coachstahly said:

I'm not sure what you're talking about here.  Are you talking about caches being archived or caches being "abandoned" by their COs rather than being archived.  In the first situation (archival), if they're archived, there won't be any next finder to remove the cache from the field because it won't show on the map, so that's not going to work

 

Good point. There is no way for GCHQ to step in if the cache owner archives individual caches.  I'm wondering though, in the case I cited, because all 500 caches were archived at once, not one at a time, I expect a reviewer was involved. And I've heard the same happened in the US, one team had 1000s archived by reviewer all at once, not one cache at a time. 

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, TriciaG said:

It's wrong ONLY IF they left the containers as geolitter. If they picked up the containers, then all is well and within their rights.

 

I stand corrected. I had assumed by the OP's post that the owner abandoned the cache and left the containers as litter. 

Edited by L0ne.R
clarity

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

 

Good point. There is no way for GCHQ to step in if the cache owner archives individual caches.  I'm wondering though, in the case I cited, because all 500 caches were archived at once, not one at a time, I expect a reviewer was involved. And I've heard the same happened in the US, one team had 1000s archived by reviewer all at once, not one cache at a time. 

 

The request for the next finder to pick up the caches still wouldn't work because, well, they're off the board.  It's certainly a problem if the containers are left in the field but unless there's a caching crew willing to go pick them up, it's unlikely to go away any time soon.  There's really no way GS can enforce the CO requirement to pick them up, other than the CO willing and dedicated enough to do it on their own.

Share this post


Link to post

There's been some confusion in this discussion with different posters making different assumptions.

 

If someone can no longer maintain their caches, then the preferred option is for them to archive their caches like this person did. Otherwise, we end up with a cache that eventually festers and doesn't have an active owner to deal with it. It's entirely within the rights of the CO to choose when they don't want to be a CO any more, and no other parties should have any say in that decision. A CO shouldn't be forced (explicitly nor implicitly) to continue to keep their caches in the game just because others want them to.

 

Of course, it's highly recommended that the conscientious owner go out and remove the container when they archive their caches so we don't end up with geo-litter. Administratively speaking, this is a separate action from the act of archiving the listing, though they should typically happen together.

 

It isn't clear if the cacher in question has removed the containers yet, or if they plan to do so in the near future. Either way, it could be that they know they're capable of getting out to remove the containers now, but might not be able to do so in the future, so they're proactively shutting things down now. If that's the case, then I'd say the CO is doing things exactly as they should. Sure, it means less caches for us to find, but it also means less problematic caches that need to be dealt with.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, NanCycle said:

 

Adoption was an option.  Too late now for these caches.  

 

A local cacher who recently moved away asked me if I wanted to adopt any of her 4 caches before she left.  I took them all.

 

Thanks for clarifying. 

I took half of our towns old GeoCoin event caches this year when they no longer wanted to maintain them. 

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe when archiving a cache, there needs to be a checkbox before the owner gets to hit the archive button, something that they need to acknowledge:

 

O I have removed the cache

O I intend to remove the cache

 

I suppose the "I intend to" gives them an out, but it at least makes them aware and forces them to acknowledge maintenance expectations. (And makes Groundspeak look good,  makes them look like they care that the game does not turn a blind eye to geolitter.)

 

Edited by L0ne.R
sentence structure
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

If someone can no longer maintain their caches, then the preferred option is for them to archive their caches like this person did. Otherwise, we end up with a cache that eventually festers and doesn't have an active owner to deal with it.

I've seen no evidence that the caches of a CO that leaves the area or otherwise consciously quits the game is any more likely to fester than the statistical norm of festering caches. I contest the suggestion that because a cache might possibly someday have a problem that won't be immediately attended to makes the cache, currently in good condition, a liability that should be immediately removed from the game.

 

1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

Of course, it's highly recommended that the conscientious owner go out and remove the container when they archive their caches so we don't end up with geo-litter. Administratively speaking, this is a separate action from the act of archiving the listing, though they should typically happen together.

I'd like to understand how these two positions interact, so allow me to present a hypothetical. A geocacher dies suddenly. No time to pick up the caches. Is it better if, with his last gasp, he archive all his caches, leaving geolitter, or is it better that he leave them active even though they might someday fail?

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, L0ne.R said:

Maybe when archiving a cache, there needs to be a checkbox before the owner gets to hit the archive button, something that they need to acknowledge:

 

O I have removed the cache

O I intend to remove the cache

 

I suppose the "I intend to" gives them an out, but it at least makes them aware and forces them to acknowledge maintenance expectations. (And makes Groundspeak look good,  like they care that the game does not turn a blind eye to geolitter.)

 

What if the reason for archiving is that the cache has gone missing or is otherwise irretrievable? Of the four I've archived, I've only been able to retrieve one; of the others, one was muggled, one was washed out to sea in a big storm and the other is buried under a rockfall.

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
33 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I've seen no evidence that the caches of a CO that leaves the area or otherwise consciously quits the game is any more likely to fester than the statistical norm of festering caches.

 

I wouldn't say that they're any more likely, but they do have the benefit of still having an active CO at the current time that can do something about the cache before it even gets to the point of festering.

 

Quote

I contest the suggestion that because a cache might possibly someday have a problem that won't be immediately attended to makes the cache, currently in good condition, a liability that should be immediately removed from the game.

 

My post was based on the assumption that the CO is no longer willing or able to perform maintenance any longer. Since, in all likelihood, the cache will inevitably require maintenance at some point, isn't it better to proactively deal with that? Otherwise, it's just another abandoned cache. I always thought we wanted to avoid abandoned, festering caches, no?

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post

I applaud the CO who archived the caches. They stated they were unable to maintain the caches.

Oh how I wish every cache owner in that situation would do the same.  If the location is that great, another cacher can place a new cache there and everyone gets a new cache to find.

 

Why are so many people against a responsible cache owner ending the listing of a cache?

 

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, K13 said:

I applaud the CO who archived the caches. They stated they were unable to maintain the caches.

Oh how I wish every cache owner in that situation would do the same.  If the location is that great, another cacher can place a new cache there and everyone gets a new cache to find.

 

Why are so many people against a responsible cache owner ending the listing of a cache?

 

 

I've got to agree with you there. Maybe freeing up the spot for someone else to use their creativity and place a new cache is a better way to 'pass the baton on' than someone adopting a pre existing cache.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

It's wrong. It gives geocaching a black eye. 

 

I wonder if when this happens (and it happens too often IMO) GCHQ could step in and ask the owner to do the right thing, ask him/her to put a note on his cache listings requesting that next finders remove his caches and discard them appropriately. 

 

Oh good grief. There are hundreds of reasons why this can happen and nearly all of them are not wrong or give geocaching a black eye.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

My post was based on the assumption that the CO is no longer willing or able to perform maintenance any longer. Since, in all likelihood, the cache will inevitably require maintenance at some point, isn't it better to proactively deal with that?

Every cache will inevitably require maintenance, CO or not. I do not see the problem with enjoying the cache until it needs maintenance.

 

1 hour ago, The A-Team said:

Otherwise, it's just another abandoned cache. I always thought we wanted to avoid abandoned, festering caches, no?

Festering caches are a problem, and we have NMs and NAs to deal with them, whether their CO is paying attention or not. Caches in good shape are not a problem and can be enjoyed as much as ever, whether their CO is paying attention or not.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, K13 said:

Why are so many people against a responsible cache owner ending the listing of a cache?

I'm not sure I amount to "so many people", and I don't have any problem with someone that wants to withdraw their cache from doing so. I only object to the claim that there are any practical or moral reasons to insist they withdraw their caches as soon as they will no longer be in a position to maintain them. And I'm particularly annoyed by this persistent idea that as soon as a CO stops maintaining their cache, it immediately becomes a worthless pile of junk. I've found some really great caches in good condition years after the owner has passed away.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

I wonder if when this happens (and it happens too often IMO) GCHQ could step in and ask the owner to do the right thing, ask him/her to put a note on his cache listings requesting that next finders remove his caches and discard them appropriately. 

 

While admittedly not quite the same, I have seen the Reviewer say, in their Archive note, that it would be appreciated if somebody could pick up the geolitter.

(Archived because it WAS a geolitter-al mess with a non-responsive CO.)

 

It may not show up on the search map, but it can very well show up elsewhere.  Personal lists is but one example.  I know I'm gonna look to see what happened to a cache on my bookmark list.

Edited by VAVAPAM

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, dprovan said:

And I'm particularly annoyed by this persistent idea that as soon as a CO stops maintaining their cache, it immediately becomes a worthless pile of junk. I've found some really great caches in good condition years after the owner has passed away.

 

Yes, here's one that was placed in 2002, is still the original container with its original logbook, never had or needed any maintenance and probably won't in my lifetime or the CO's.

 

ThunderBlunder.jpg.cb38386876fb93e1bdb2b0bef4a50168.jpg

 

This one of mine, a stainless steel cookpot hidden deep inside a wind-eroded sandstone alcove 3km from the nearest road, is still pristine after two years (apart from some names added to the logbook) and I'm sure I'll become a worthless pile of junk long before it does.

 

20180308_101341.jpg.fd5ddd71a30e65f9616a1641aa1dfa08.jpg

Edited by barefootjeff
Spelling
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
49 minutes ago, dprovan said:

I've found some really great caches in good condition years after the owner has passed away.

 

I have, too.  Original container/log and everything.  Cool to find those. 

 

That tends to be the exception in our area, unfortunately.  It's not unusual to see a community allow one to limp along or simply lay untouched.  Or perhaps it's been on every local's ignore list for so long they forgot about it?  Then an unsuspecting traveling cacher passes through, finds - or doesn't find - it, and thinks, "Why are there no logs about the state of this cache?"  Or it becomes an armchair logger resort.

 

Sometimes when travel-caching, I really think hard before posting what appears, to me, to be an obviously needed NA.  (NMs don't do that to me.)  What's going on here?  Am I asking to kill off a local sweetheart for which nobody has the heart to pull the plug?    Ah, well, let the Reviewers decide; they'll know better than I if it's "time".

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, barefootjeff said:

 

What if the reason for archiving is that the cache has gone missing or is otherwise irretrievable? Of the four I've archived, I've only been able to retrieve one; of the others, one was muggled, one was washed out to sea in a big storm and the other is buried under a rockfall.

 

Good point. "I've checked and it's missing, not retrievable" could be another choice to select. 

Just something that makes the CO aware of her final responsibilities with regard to cache ownership.

The act of selecting from a list makes a CO more likely to be responsible. Some COs might feel more responsible if they have to vouch. They might actually go retrieve their cache. Maybe some COs might go check that it's actually missing. 

Share this post


Link to post

In a neighboring community, a rather prolific CO passed away.  When the COs partner moved to another area, many caches were left without a real maintenance plan.  I will say that the partner did communicate, and upon occasion archived when community service didn't suffice.  After a while, a relative new-comer to the area adopted all of the remaining caches left by this CO.  Before that happened, though, I wondered if the caching community there cringed when outside cachers did maintenance ... if they were just waiting for those caches to go away.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, K13 said:

I applaud the CO who archived the caches. They stated they were unable to maintain the caches.

Oh how I wish every cache owner in that situation would do the same.  If the location is that great, another cacher can place a new cache there and everyone gets a new cache to find.

 

Why are so many people against a responsible cache owner ending the listing of a cache?

 

 

My brother-in-law dared me to put out a GeoArt series.  I thought it was a good series along a walkway.  It required a lot of maintenance.  It was NOT a power trail!  Please do not move the MKH to the nano.  The nano to the fake bolt.  The fake bolt to the bison.  The series was thirty miles east, where my caching partner lived.  When my partner died, I archived the series. and removed all the caches that I could find.  I (and many other cachers) thought it was a great series.  But I was not going to drive that far to maintain it.   Since then (almost four years) one cache has been placed along that pathway.  02 was out there somewhere!

02.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, L0ne.R said:

Good point. "I've checked and it's missing, not retrievable" could be another choice to select. 

Just something that makes the CO aware of her final responsibilities with regard to cache ownership.

The act of selecting from a list makes a CO more likely to be responsible. Some COs might feel more responsible if they have to vouch. They might actually go retrieve their cache. Maybe some COs might go check that it's actually missing. 

 

That's an awful lot of "more likely", "might", and "maybe".  It's already in the guidelines as to what a CO should do in the case of archival.  Those COs who are conscientious will do it while those who don't, won't.  

 

If the COs are the ones archiving their caches, I bet they already know their responsibilities so I'm not sure how this would benefit them very much.  Absentee owners, however, won't even have to check any boxes because it will be the reviewer who archives the cache.  Again, the intent is right but the "solution" seems to be a little more work for GS with very little upside.  I just think it's redundant.  Perhaps they could automatically link to the appropriate help center page about removal of the cache after archival once the archive log is selected and before it's finalized.

Share this post


Link to post

If a CO rightfully archives their caches, and everyone thinks these are great caches, yet they're remaining left out in the wild - why would you assume they can no longer be enjoyed? The alternative solution is for someone to place new listings using the same containers (assuming they can responsibly maintain them when needed).  No one's saying that as soon as a CO decides not maintain them that they immediately become worthless trash (not the same as litter).  There are plenty of solutions to keeping a cache going even if a CO jumps the gun in archival before adopting, or commits geocide.  It's always their decision and their right.  However it's assumed that since they own the physical material now left in the real world with no (active) connection to geocaching, it's effectively abandoned waste, and litter, if they have no plan to retrieve the container.

 

If people still want to enjoy the cache, then republish a listing at the same location once you've checked on it and know that it's no longer "owned" in the real property sense.

 

Never forget that if you assume it's an abandoned piece of property (ie, you don't have express permission from its owner) and you assume the mantle to adopt it, then you could be stealing someone's property - there are other listing sites (no matter how small or insignificant) where it may be listed, nor have you any idea if that owner has other plans for the container.

 

If a cache is archived, you really have to let it go, unless you can communicate with its owner to formulate a followup action plan (or come to the conclusion reasonably that it's abandoned litter).  Don't assume it's still good, or now junk. It ain't your property. (a rule of thumb; there are always exceptions, if you feel otherwise beyond a shadow of a doubt). If it becomes trash and human litter, it is 100% entrely the fault of the ex-owner for carelessly abandoning human waste in a natural environment. At some point someone will have to make a judgment call and pick it up, or take ownership, or it will see an alternative end over time.  THAT is what's a Bad Thing and gives geocaching a black eye.

Edited by thebruce0
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

Abandoned caches are bad, but abandoned archived caches are much worse. Unfortunately, situations like this that's usually what's happening: CO doesn't want to deal with them anymore (usually has quit the game) so makes the cache listings go away without making the cache containers go away.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, Harry Dolphin said:

02 was out there somewhere!

 

I did this series, and gave 02 a favorite point for walking me way out over the Hudson River, and for being a great puzzle.  In the photo you can see that under the grating is a pipe, but boy did my heart start racing when the pipe went away and the grating was just over the river itself!  Excellent, excellent, location for a cache.  

02.jpg.e8bb6015c02026d25e97da7f41948664.

 

Great job with the Geo Art Mr. Dolphin!  And thanks for being responsible and removing the containers when you archived the caches so they didn't become geo-junk.  I was sorry to see the series go.  My completed geo art:

d9a5127d-1c7b-4aee-8a5e-d3013ffd229e.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post

I archive my caches every time I move, which at this point is every couple of years.  That fits in the definition of no longer being able to maintain my caches, as I'm not there to do it.

 

For the first move, I initially made arrangements with local geocachers who were interested in keeping my caches going in their name: I disabled the listings but left the containers in place, the new CO put new logs in the caches, and then the reviewer archived my caches at the same time they published new listings.  (When I returned to the area last summer, this put me in the position of finding caches I originally placed, since although the CO who picked up the listings has apparently stopped caching, caches were still in place, either active or archived.)

 

But those were my first hides, and I was sentimental about keeping them going in some form after I'd left.  For each subsequent move, I have become less attached to keeping "my" listings going; I only did it for a few at my second location, only a couple for my third, and after that third move, I stopped.  In a few cases, cachers have spontaneously hidden new caches in spots I'd picked, and that's pretty cool.  But I've increasingly left it to others to make that choice, without making formal arrangements.

 

I could adopt my listings out every time I move, but I don't, for two reasons.

 

First, that cache history is mine.  I picked those spots, I designed those puzzles, I maintained those logs.  And while caching karma is not a universally recognized thing, I'm proud that I have given others over twice as many opportunities to find a cache (19613 finds on our caches to date) than I have finds.  If I adopt those caches out, I give all that caching history to someone else.  I choose not to do so.

 

Second, in the long run, it's probably more helpful for most caching communities if I pick up my caches and free up those areas for new hides than if I adopt them out.  I started hiding caches too late for my caches to be considered "historic" hides, and for the most part, they're not super unique.  I try to make them decent, but I would not consider myself God's gift to caching, so I don't see it as a huge loss if I pack up my caches when the movers come.  Besides, cachers who don't move around as often as I do will tend to run out of local caches to find at some point.  Sure, that point comes sooner in, say, Medicine Park, Oklahoma, than it does in Wiesbaden, Germany, but at some point, unless there is some turnover in caches, it will happen.  Each time we've moved, at least a few new hides have cropped up in areas that used to be "ours," and the game continues with new players and new hides.

 

(It just occurred to me that there is a third, potentially subconscious reason I don't adopt my caches out - maybe I want to avoid finding out that no one really wants to adopt them.)

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, hzoi said:

I could adopt my listings out every time I move, but I don't, for two reasons.

 

First, that cache history is mine.

 

This ^

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, hzoi said:

Second, in the long run, it's probably more helpful for most caching communities if I pick up my caches and free up those areas for new hides than if I adopt them out.  I started hiding caches too late for my caches to be considered "historic" hides, and for the most part, they're not super unique.  I try to make them decent, but I would not consider myself God's gift to caching, so I don't see it as a huge loss if I pack up my caches when the movers come.  Besides, cachers who don't move around as often as I do will tend to run out of local caches to find at some point.  Sure, that point comes sooner in, say, Medicine Park, Oklahoma, than it does in Wiesbaden, Germany, but at some point, unless there is some turnover in caches, it will happen.  Each time we've moved, at least a few new hides have cropped up in areas that used to be "ours," and the game continues with new players and new hides.

 

I also agree with your second point. Especially with the need for turn-over. It's good for the pastime. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, thebruce0 said:

The alternative solution is for someone to place new listings using the same containers

FWIW, several years ago, when a cache owner committed geocide and archived all his caches, a number of people recreated his best puzzle caches. The volunteer reviewer insisted that all the recreated caches use new containers, rather than simply taking over the original owner's containers.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, niraD said:

FWIW, several years ago, when a cache owner committed geocide and archived all his caches, a number of people recreated his best puzzle caches. The volunteer reviewer insisted that all the recreated caches use new containers, rather than simply taking over the original owner's containers.

 

Agreed, it's better to do so. But ultimately the reviewer would never "know" whether you were to use the high quality, good condition container that was abandoned by the previous owner (or used with permission) or brought your own - and I don't think the reviewer can require that you replace the container with your own. There's no way to verify it.  But absolutely the new owner must visit the cache and verify that the cache container is is good condition as if it were their own new container, if it isn't.

They can't just assume it's in publishable shape and create a new listing. For all intents and purposes, it is a brand new cache, and the new CO must treat it from the very start as their own brand new hidden container.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think there´s absolutely nothing wrong with archiving intact caches. There are several good enough reasons to do so.

  • Owners sometimes might have new ideas and make space for them.
  • After a couple of years only tiring c/p log´s from random bypassers get anoying and the owner wants to get rid of them
  • Loosing interest in the game an choose to archive before they fall abandoned and rott in the wild
  • Noticing an impact on the surroundings
  • Getting negative feedback from neighbours
  • Having to much work to keep theyre owned caches in perfekt shape
  • Getting sick of disrespectfull handling by cachers
  • Finding a cache outdated
  • Want to give the local community some fresh caches in the cache packed area
  • ......

....and many more. I like a fresh breese there and then better than never letting go a old thing. Letting a cache live on just for the sake of letting it live on is not worth it.

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/15/2019 at 8:55 PM, TriciaG said:

It's wrong ONLY IF they left the containers as geolitter. If they picked up the containers, then all is well and within their rights.

 

The caches belong to the CO; they have the right to pick them up and archive the listings at any time, in any number, in good condition or not.

 

(There's an implication of permanence, so it's frowned upon to archive them soon after they're listed, but that's a side issue.)

 

Agreed.  They are also under no obligation to continue playing the game (by keeping the cache listings active), explain to anyone why they are choosing to stop playing, or should be chastized simply because they have decided to do something else.   

  • Upvote 3
  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

×
×
  • Create New...